New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, earlier this month, ordered the release of 72-year-old Rashid Khan, a life convict in the 1993 Bowbazar blast case, after more than 26 years in prison, holding that the gravity of the original offence could not justify continued imprisonment when the prisoner’s conduct demonstrated reformation.
Emphasising that constitutional jurisprudence has consistently recognised reformation as a central component of sentencing policy, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held on 5 June that the circumstances justified remission, and that there was “no point in referring the matter back to the Government”.
“The punishment undergone by the Petitioner has sufficiently fulfilled the deterrence sought to be induced in a convict who has committed such grave offence,” she observed.
In a judgement that addressed executive discretion, the constitutional values of reformation and the limits of state power in remission matters, she went on to grant remission herself, directing Khan’s release forthwith, subject to his not being wanted in any other case.
Rashid Khan was convicted in 2001 under the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for his alleged role in the explosion in 1993 in the crowded Bowbazar area in Kolkata that resulted in 69 deaths and many injuries. His conviction was later upheld by the Supreme Court. Since his arrest in 1993, Khan has remained in custody.
The present writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenged two decisions of the West Bengal State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) in 2017 and 2018, which had rejected his plea for premature release.
Khan had also sought a direction to the Union Government, the “appropriate government” for TADA convicts according to previous apex court judgements, to grant remission under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empower the appropriate government (Central or state) to suspend, remit or commute a punishment.
The judgement traces the unusual trajectory of Khan’s remission process. In 2015, the SSRB had recommended his premature release after evaluating his conduct, age, rehabilitation prospects, and reports from the police, correctional authorities, and probation officers.
However, the release order could not be issued because of interim directions passed by the Supreme Court restraining states from granting remission in cases involving Central laws, such as TADA.
Later, the Supreme Court clarified that remission for TADA convicts must be considered by the Central Government. This shifted the responsibility from the state of West Bengal to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
Despite this, the petitioner’s case remained in limbo.
His son repeatedly wrote to state and Central authorities, but the matter was neither decided nor forwarded to the appropriate authorities promptly.
When the SSRB reconsidered the case in 2017 and again in 2018, it reversed its earlier recommendation and rejected the plea, citing the gravity of the offence, his alleged role as “mastermind”, and objections from the Kolkata Police regarding potential social impact upon his release.
A central element of the petitioner’s argument in the high court was his exemplary conduct in prison.
The Superintendent of the Presidency Correctional Home issued a character certificate describing his behaviour as “very very good”, noting that he had never been punished and had cooperated with authorities and fellow inmates.
He had been granted parole for 93 days without police escort and had returned on time on every occasion.
He had also undertaken various forms of work in prison, including cleaning, gardening, and watch duty.
Citing his age, multiple medical ailments and nearly three decades of incarceration behind him, the petitioner argued that continued detention served no penological purpose.
In other words, continued detention does not serve the goals of punishment, and therefore, a more humane approach should be considered.
The respondents, the Union of India and the state of West Bengal, opposed the petition, arguing that TADA offences affect national security and that the petitioner remained a serious threat.
In the latest judgement, the court noted that the SSRB had already recommended the petitioner’s release in 2015 after a comprehensive evaluation. The later rejections in 2017 and 2018 were based on the same facts that existed earlier, and no new material had emerged to justify a reversal.
The court also rejected the argument that the petitioner posed a continuing threat. His conduct during parole, the absence of any complaints from the public, and the positive reports from correctional authorities demonstrated that fears of retaliation or future crime were unfounded.
The court held that the state’s reliance on the gravity of the original offence could not, by itself, justify perpetual incarceration when all other indicators pointed toward reformation.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: ‘Trial far from over’—How HC balanced right to liberty & UAPA in bail to activist Khurram Parvez
Interesting, there is a scope of reform for someone who is responsible for the death of more than 60 people. I guess you can get away with anything if you start acting nice in the prison.
So if you are an emerging criminal please do take note.